get-traffic-timeline

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the non-obvious aggregation behavior (rows bucketed by first_detected, persistent connections collapsed into one row, window-start smearing surfaced via rows_spanning_buckets/resolution_note) and the exact spike rule (>=3x median of non-zero buckets, `worst` naming). These are semantic caveats an agent could not infer from the schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then escalation to caveats and the spike rule. Dense but information-bearing; the final sentence about spikes is long but every clause adds a distinct rule an agent needs.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 16-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the core semantics plus important output caveats (rows_spanning_buckets, resolution_note, worst). It leaves the many filter parameters to the schema, which is acceptable at 75% coverage, but a brief note on the filter family would make it fully complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 75%, so the schema largely documents the 16 parameters. The description explains the spikes=true rule and implies bucket behavior, but says nothing about include/exclude sources, services, destinations, or policy_decisions beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource ('time-bucketed flow counts') plus the exact bucketing semantics (15m/1h/6h/1d, zeros included). It explicitly contrasts itself with the alternative approach ('instead of one summary query per bucket'), so it is distinguishable from siblings like get-traffic-flows and get-traffic-flows-summary without opening any schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives a concrete usage scenario ('blocked flows per hour for app X') and names the approach it replaces. It does not name the specific sibling tool it supersedes, so the routing signal is clear but not fully explicit against get-traffic-flows-summary.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.